Stripes

My Feedback: (19)

Is a functional rudder, or rudder function, a requirement of 428/424? I didn't see it in the rules.

daven

My Feedback: (1)

Yes it is required and should be in the rules.

diggs_74

Here is what it says in the NCPL rules about a rudder.... I'm not sure if this is taken directly from the AMA rules or not but most of it is other than the .46 engine instead of the .40...

"7.3.1. Steering: The NCPL strongly encourages a positive means of yaw control (rudder) using a dedicated, operable servo(s) for NCPL Q500 racing but it is not required. In addition, while in flight, all aircraft shall be positively and independently controllable in pitch and roll modes using dedicated, operable servos. Mixing of control functions is permitted so long as the aircraft remains positively and independently controllable in both pitch and roll modes at all times while in flight."

daven

My Feedback: (1)

Lee,

The NCPL rules differ from AMA. We had a lot of guys that flew Kraft radios in pylon several years ago, and V-tail mixing is tough to do on a Kraft radio so they added that. I'll try and find the AMA rule, but I'm 99.9% sure that a rudder is mandatory.

diggs_74

That makes sense I guess... Hasn't Al gotten rid of all those old things now?

Clark L

7.3 Flight controls.
7.3.1 Steering: Except in 1/2A, every aircraft shall be equipped with a positive means of steering on the ground using a dedicated, operable servo(s). Aerodynamic yaw control by means of a movable rudder or "V" tail fulfills this requirement. In addition...

There ya go...

diggs_74

So it wasn't the most right I've been all day Sorry Stripes.

Stripes

My Feedback: (19)

So when one of the guys doesn't have a rudder should I be raising a stink? What would be a nice diplomatic way to raise the issue? One that doesn't cause hard feelings? I mean he is carrying one less servo than we are. . .

diggs_74

That's true but he still has to meet the minimum weight requirement... If he's running the smaller servos this isn't much weight. I don't think I can say that I ever got beat because someone had one less servo than I did. However, the rules are the rules and if it states you need independant yaw control then I guess you talk to the CD....

ALbert.S

All Kraft equipment is now in the hands of the collectors I just have the memories and the money from the sale left. I have purchased all new receivers and one do it all Polk transmitter The rudder rule has been in effect since the beginning of racing The NCPL choose to make it optional for some reason that I can't recall anymore

Clark L

Air contact on takeoff happens... but i'd be pretty mad if I got tagged by someone that was operating without any sort of yaw control. When launching two airplanes at a time the ability to takeoff straight is crucial. Without some sort of rudder control I'm not sure you could effectively do it. Also, we've all seen plenty of mishaps on the landing rollout. I'd hate to see how bad it would be if nobody had rudder... Unless the guy can show he can consistantly takeoff and land with enough control to avoid other airplanes, I would raise a stink.

Clark

Ed Smith

The earlier post stating that a Vee tail fulfills the rudder requirement is correct. However all of the rules book should be read, rather a novel concept these days. The vee tail is illegal. Rule 7.1. on page 114 of the rules book is quite specific. I quote.

I fail to see why it is acceptable to select certain rule wordings while ignoring others.

If the rule is applied as written the VEE configuration is for the rudder function only and is not meant as a replacement for the horizontal stabilizer.

Ed S

diggs_74

Clark,

I flew most of last year with a Sonic 500 without a rudder... Yes the first couple takeoffs where a little hairy, but after that it wasn't really an issue. That thing came off the ground so fast that a little aileron worked just fine and I don't think I ever had an issue with takeoffs.... Landings weren't really an issue either because I just nosed it over on the grass and it stopped... There's a pic around somewhere illistrating this... Found it

Clark L

Hey Ed, are you saying that in order for a horizontal stab to be called a horizontal stab it must be perfectly flat? I would disagree with that one. I can argue that a "V" tail IS a horizontal stab. A V-tail empennage stabilizes the aircraft about the lateral axis (pitch). This is the function of any horizontal stabilizer. (The V-tail also happens to stabilize about the vertical axis as well.) I can name several aircraft that don't have "flat" stabs. Look at most of the modern day airliners. Those stabs all have a fair amount of dihedral. Or how about the F4 Phantom?

Clark

[8D]

Clark L

Lee, I forgot about flying off grass... (no grass in the Southwest) Yup, it probably would stop pretty fast. Pavement might be the only time a lack of rudder would be an issue on landing. As for takeoffs... I'd probably wipe someone out for sure without a rudder, especially with a crosswind.

Clark

daven

My Feedback: (1)

Actually, I would like to see our rule changed, rudder should be mandatory. Then again, just because people have it on their plane, does not gaurantee that they will use it. I know I try for lane #4 and steer right on take off to avoid the traffic.

I also agree about the horizontal stab, the v-tail still controls pitch (horizontal) movement. Nothing says the stab itself has to be horizontal.

Then again, this arguement is roughly 10 years to late. The cats out of the bag, I don't see everyone going backwards at this point. Although I would much prefer building standard tails versus the Vee.

djlyon

Hey Clark. Why would the rule 7.3.1 mention the "V" tail if it were illegal per rule 7.1 ? Probably the people who wrote the rules do not have perfect command of the English language. I can assure you that the people who design full size airplanes certainly don't. If we did we would never have called it a horizontal stabilizer to begin with.

Denis

Ed Smith

I said nothing about flat. A flat surface can be vertical.

Horizontal is horizontal, I do not know how else to describe it.

My last word on the subject.

Ed S

garys

My Neme-Q's have a "horizontal" stab, actually two of them. They are flush with the top and bottom of the fuse, and have an extremely low aspect ratio. In fact, their span doesn't even extend beyond the fuselage sides...after all, there isn't a minimum size requirement for the "horizontal" stab.

Our old Calzona Q500 class didn't have a rudder requirment. Many of us flew airplanes with only three channels. I can't say we had any more issues than now. Most of the takeoff issues tend to come from people using too much rudder anyways...

GS

DHG

My Feedback: (7)

Ed's argument is not without merit; I just think he's taking the "horizontal stabilizer" reference out of context. The quoted paragraph is meant to keep out canards, flying wings, pushers, and deltas from R/C racing. A V-tailed airplane with the engine and main lifting wing at the front end and the V tail (which functions as both a "horizontal stabilizer" and a vertical stabilizer) at the back end fits this general definition of a "conventional" design. This is confirmed by the later references to "yaw control" (why not "flat, vertical stabilizer" or "single movable rudder"?) and specific mention of V-tail mixing.

Ed says V tails aren't "conventional" because you don't see many of them. Still, most people who've seen a Beech Bonanza puttering around would agree that it's not beyond the pale. And there was at least one V-tailed racing airplane, Art Chester's Swee'Pea.

My question is, with designs like the Voyager and Global Flyer in the news lately -- not to mention Spaceship One -- will we soon have the same debate over twin-boom models? They definitely have a "horizontal stabilizer" in back, the engine and main lifting wing in front, but don't look nearly as "conventional" as a Bonanza.

Sure am glad I'm not on the contest board any more!

Duane Gall
RCPRO

js3

My Feedback: (3)

DHG, you are a trouble maker!

Clark L

"con-ven-tion-al 1.Based on or in accordance with general agreement, use, or practice;"

Maybe 10 years or so ago V-tails were not the norm. I'd guess this discussion of their legality took place back then. (it seems it still does) However, I'd have to say that now days there's alot more V-tails flying in Q-500 than not, so does that mean V-tails are now "conventional"???

Here's a funny one for ya... The FAA defines an aircraft with conventional landing gear as a taildragger. If it's not conventional it must be tricycle geared. (Look at all those "unconventional" airliners.)

Just thought I'd take another poke at the cage...

garys

Duane,
Why wouldn't I be surprised if you show up at a race with a twin-boom Q500? I haven't looked at the rules lately, but does the airplane length rule specifically say fuselage length or just the overall length of the airplane? You can also argue that the booms aren't part of the fuse, and therefore area exempt from having a .25" minimum radius....I think it would be more drag and definately more complicated than a "normal" Q500, but when has that stopped you?
GS

djlyon

As I said G-Wiz your conventional Shot Gun is rather unconventional.

HighPlains

My Feedback: (1)

"Conventional" does not refer to the shape of the tail, number of tail surfaces, fuselage design or anything yet mentioned. In this regard, it only refers to the force arrangement of the aircraft. Front engine (known as "tractor" engine), wing in the middle of the force arrangement, and aft tail. The aft tail is configured to pull downward to offset both pitching moment and the CG located ahead of the center of lift for static stability. THAT is what is meant by CONVENTIONAL design. Geez, they even spell it out in the rules!

You can easily find multiple references of this force arrangement as the definition of conventional. A lot of the old timers in pylon were actually somewhat familiar with aeronautical terminology. And many were actually aeronautical engineers. Ed, get over it. You have been wrong about this from day 1.